Afghanistan Takes Down Dutch Government

This is the news out of the Hague this weekend, although the full story is more complicated. But it's true: last week there emerged an irreconcilable conflict between the Social-Democratic and Christian-Democratic members of the government over a NATO request to consider keeping Dutch troops in Afghanistan in some capacity beyond their current mandate, scheduled to end later this year. Both Christian Democratic parties in the cabinet of Prime-Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende (the guy who looks a little like Harry Potter) were willing to consider the NATO request (backed by considerable U.S. pressure), the Social Democrats were not. They pointed especially to a vote in the parliament last fall, confirming that the current mission in Uruzgan would end in 2010 as scheduled. They're also down in the polls, losing a lot of ground to the populist PVV (anti-Islamist Geert Wilders) and the more left-of-center Socialist Party, and must have decided that it was vital to take a clear stand and stick with it. Interesting detail, however, is the origins of the NATO request, which the foreign minister, backed by Balkenende and others in the cabinet, insists was discussed and approved by the cabinet ahead of time. They seem to be right. In other words, before NATO sent its request, it had verified that the response would be positive, that there was a willingness in the Hague to find some way to extend the mission in Afghanistan. But in parliament last week, prior to the cabinet meeting where the NATO request would first be discussed, Social Democratic leader and vice prime minister Wouter Bos openly rejected this call, thereby not only pulling the rug out from under this government, but also going back on his word. I think Bos decided to play it really hard (and possibly a little below the belt) by luring his coalition partners into the trap of the NATO request, and next take a stand on principle. He must have known what the NATO soundings about a possible formal request meant, after all.

The arguments against a further Dutch presence have at times included the alleged pointlessness of the mission, the need for a Dutch policy independent of the U.S., and the "fact" that the Dutch have been there long enough and that it's time for someone else to step up. But Afghanistan wasn't the only reason for the break. People who know Dutch politics much better than I do, and who have been following this government from its start three years ago, point out that this had become a dysfunctional group that agreed on less and less. Infamously, when it became clear last year that significant budget cuts will be necessary due to the economic crisis, all this government was capable of was to form about twenty working groups of high-level civil servants to come up with some proposals later in 2010. Talk about abdicating your responsibility to govern, to make the tough decisions. More recently there was an independent report on the extent of the Dutch support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2002-03--quite strong, although without direct military involvement--which criticized the government at the time (also led by Balkenende). Because the prime minister initially did not show enough contrition in their view, the Social Democrats pushed things to the verge of a crisis then also. So the causes are complex and also have to do with the political instability and disorientation that has plagued this country since at least 2002, when the out-of-nowhere politician (and some would say: populist) Pim Fortuyn was murdered right before an election he was poised to win. Later there was the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a domestic Islamic extremist, and since a few years we have Wilders, a kind of Fortuyn wanna-be, although coarser and more opportunistic. Every unhappy country is unhappy in its own way, but the Netherlands does seem to resemble other Western democracies in the volatility of its politics and, especially, the lack of faith people have in politicians' ability (or even commitment) to address important problems.

Still, foreign affairs has played an important part. While opposition to foreign interventions or peace keeping missions isn't massive, it is considerable, and it is growing. Furthermore, influential voices openly question the alliance with the U.S., arguing instead that the Dutch should put all their security eggs in a European basket. This of course raises the key question, and it's not a new one: does the Netherlands--does Europe, really--have an alternative to some form of alliance with the United States? Should it even want one, even if Europe ever became capable of acting in a unified way in international politics (not something anyone old enough to be able to read this will experience in their lifetime)? It says something, though, that serious people are perfectly happy not just to raise this illusion as an option, but to advocate for its realization here and now. I think it testifies to a deep-seated, though not always openly acknowledged, anti-Americanism (regardless of who runs the government in Washington). In addition, a serious dose of wishful thinking about the possibilities of the EU has to be part of it too. It's not that one can't be convinced that Europe eventually will have to come together, also in foreign and defense matters, what's troubling is the kind of either-or thinking that seems to inform these arguments: just get rid/out of NATO, and we'll be on our way. I'm well into a new post now, although all this stuff is connected. I'll have to continue it at some later date.